Hans Joachim Marseille Signed Photo

[Craig Gottlieb]

I have had this photo for some time, since purchasing it from a very reputable source. I've never had a bad comment about it until tonight via email, but wished to post it here on the forum for any comments. The emailer gave no specifics, only "shaming" me for not listenting to him. From my perspective, the photo in person exhibits the natural characteristics of a genuine signature (that you can't really see until you inspect it in person): fountain pen ridges on the sides of the lettering, natural flow of ink, etc. I do value forum opinion, however, and wanted to post it here.



http://www.craiggottlieb.com/engine/...rman+Militaria

[Jeremy]

This post

Erhm, there was no 'shaming'. I saw he was selling this item and sent a series of authentic signatures when I suggested he was selling a fake. It was on hold to a customer, who may be burning their money. He was unable to use the authentic items tI sent to see that many of the features common to them were clearly different to what I consider to be a fake he is selling. I even offered to go into detail on why I thought (not 100% stated) it was a fake (no reply).

I don't believe he deliberately is selling it as a fake, and suggested that if he was not knowledgeable enough to confirm it as genuine he should post it here, just as I did after I saw he had done so. He has done that, though it was churlish to mention I 'shamed' him into it. So, please let us know your thoughts guys.

Thanks

J

[Jeremy]

closeup

oh, and here's a closeup of the sig
J

[max history]

Erhm, there was no 'shaming'. I saw he was selling this item and sent a series of authentic signatures when I suggested he was selling a fake. It was on hold to a customer, who may be burning their money. He was unable to use the authentic items tI sent to see that many of the features common to them were clearly different to what I consider to be a fake he is selling. I even offered to go into detail on why I thought (not 100% stated) it was a fake (no reply).

I don't believe he deliberately is selling it as a fake, and suggested that if he was not knowledgeable enough to confirm it as genuine he should post it here, just as I did after I saw he had done so. He has done that, though it was churlish to mention I 'shamed' him into it. So, please let us know your thoughts guys.

Thanks

J

Jeremy,
You are obviously having serious doubts concerning the authenticity of this signed postcard portrait. I note from the above posts that you sent Craig some examples of what you consider to be authentic signatures. Can I suggest that this thread might benefit from your views if you expand on your opinion and provide a full explanation of your concerns and the reasons for them? In addition, it would be helpful if you posted images of the signatures you consider to be authentic and which you used as comparisons.
I should add that Craig's example is as near as damn it to an authentic Marseille autograph as I have seen. So, if it is fake, it's a bloody good one. My only concern is that it is an exact copy of the example in the Hamilton book and therefore physical examination would be preferable before determining authenticity. Unfortunately, I do not have a Marseille signature in my collection to compare. (I do not collect Luftwaffe signatures.)
Regards,
Max.

[WalterB]

I am not a graphologist, but the following document that I have in my collection comes from what I consider to be a very solid source. Perhaps a good comparison can be made of his signature. The document is Marseille's engagement report where he claims his 48th air victory. The report states, loosely, as follows:

"Engagement Report of Shootdown

After my first firing of the Curtiss, I attacked a second English fighter, likewise a Curtiss, flying from the direction of the Gambut airfield. The Curtiss had spotted me and forced me to immediately turn into a downward left turn. I circled along and fired at the Curtis in a left turn from a distance of approximately 50 meters, shots hitting the engine and cockpit. I pulled up over the Curtiss and went above it since I was being attacked by two other English fighters. I did observe that the Curtiss created a large dust formation upon impact.

Impact location: On February 15, 1942 at 13:03 hours. 5 km southeast of Gambut airfield."

As a side note, some research online on Marseille's 47th and 48th air victories revealed the following:


"Kittyhawk Is from No. 3 Squadron RAAF, near Gambut airfield. The Kittyhawks were bounced by two Bf 109s during takeoff. Marseille's first victory was Kittyhawk I AK594; Pilot Officer P. J. "Tommy" Briggs, bailed out at an altitude of 100 m and was injured. The second victory was Kittyhawk I AK605: Flight Sergeant F. B. (Frank) Reid was killed when it crashed."

[Craig Gottlieb]

My reasons for having confidence in the signature are ample. In PERSON and under magnification, the signature exhibits natural ink flow, and the split fountain-pen nib that results from pressure characteristic of card-stock signatures signed in fountain pen, is present.

Furthermore, "Forger's shake" is also absent (erratic, unconnected lines that reveal anxiety and nerves present when a forger is risking damage to a valuable photo by adding a signature). Marseilles wouldn't care that he was signing a photo of himself - they were valued at a few pfennigs at the time.

These elements are three very significant signs of the signature being executed by the personality, and not a forger. I have had significant and substantial experience in my 11 years as a full-time dealer, and twice that long as a full-time collector, and can spot fake signatures.

Finally, although the physical evidence is sufficient, the price I paid was almost nothing, thereby removing the profit motif. Again, please feel free to ignore this statement, as it's not the "main attraction" but merely added color.

[Jeremy]

My case

Thanks WalterB for posting the example. If we look at the examples I am posting they are certainly similar to WalterB's example. See below. I can only post two photos in this reply but will add more.

Max, your comment does very little to add weight to the argument that this is a genuine signature. You suggest I post some signatures that support my argument but you offer nothing. Please post examples that show what your opinion is based on and use them to support your view, too.

Firstly, I disagree that the signature illustrates 'natural' flow - based on the close up, it looks like a measured attempt at copying. Note on the signatures on postcards presented the variability of the ink consistency and shade. Also, I have pointed with red arrows to areas of the signature that I believe illustrate a fakers controlled attempt at signing. The thickness of the ink in these parts also seems unnaturally thick and do not run properly in my view, perhaps due to the steady attempt to do the signature.

Secondly, see the unnatural and rapid transition between the thick and thin ink flow not evident in the comparison examples presented. I have used blue arrows to point to these.

Thirdly, with green arrows I point to the major differences to the comparison examples. Note the 'W' shape of the letter M in the comparisons and look at the one in Craig's example. Also, the lack of the 'L' shaped letter I (second green arrow from left illustrates this absence). Then, on what I believe are good examples of signatures, note the shape for the two letter L's. They are upright, symmetrical, and the ink flow even.

These are merely my justifications and I am no graphologist either, but even a layman can see that this signature is clearly inconsistent in comparison to the other signatures which present a degree of consistency. Of course my argument is based on the fact that I consider the examples I have shown to be genuine - there is no guarantee that this is so, but I would suggest that a collector would be foolhardy to part with a lot of money for Craig's postcard. There is clearly sufficient doubt in my mind to warrant this discussion here.

Now, either the examples presented, as well as by WalterB, are dubious, or 1 (!!) presented by Craig is genuine. There are sufficient differences I have pointed out that raise enough concern for any collector that Craig's Marseille is very problematic. Perhaps if Marseille had signed it with his non-writing hand he would have produced this... then it is genuine I guess, and like the one's Max has seen.

I am happy to be shown I am wrong, so I look forward to an informed response from someone with expertise which shows my judgements to be flawed and why so (but I still wouldn't buy it).

J

[Jeremy]

and more

here are two more examples (one from www. weitze.com and another from an unknown source) for comparison which show features which appear to be representative of potentially authentic signatures taht I have discussed.

J

[Jeremy]

final two

Two signed Hoffmann cards. I think that's enough.

[Craig Gottlieb]

I have looked at your photos. If you compare 10 of my signatures on checks, documents, and other papers, they are ALL different. I could post them all, and you could put little arrows by the differences. It all depends on how much of a hurry I'm in, what I'm signing, what else i have going on, etc. You can have your opinion, Jeremy, and so can I. I believe it to be original, for the analytical reasons stated, and have stated my reasons, and you have stated yours. Have a blessed Easter weekend.

[max history]

Max, your comment does very little to add weight to the argument that this is a genuine signature. You suggest I post some signatures that support my argument but you offer nothing. Please post examples that show what your opinion is based on and use them to support your view, too.
J

Jeremy,
Have you read my post? I am not suggesting either way that the signature is correct or not and therefore I had no intention of adding weight to prove it is correct. I also state quite clearly that I do not have an original to compare. What I have said (and I’ll repeat it again) is that Craig’s example is almost an exact copy of the printed authentic version in Charles Hamilton’s book (see below.) I requested that you provide arguments to support your case along with examples.
Thank you for explaining your position and posting examples upon which you base your argument. However, I must take issue with some of the points you raise over authentication as I disagree with a number of your points. A measured attempt at copying a signature has an appearance of being “drawn.” This one does not. The “rapid transition between thick and thin ink flow” is easily explained by the change in direction of the nib and is quite common in all handwriting. I would not want any of the comparison examples provided in my collection (had I collected Luftwaffe signatures), especially the signed photos which DO exhibit obvious areas of doubt.
In my opinion, Craig’s example looks to be the best bet for an authentic Marseille signature posted here, but before reaching a final decision it requires physical examination, especially as his signature is so heavily forged on photos and documents.
Max.

[max history]

Jeremy,
I believe all the signatures posted here, apart from Craig's example and that in the Hamilton book, are the work of the same hand. Sadly, and only in my opinion, not that of Hans Joachim Marseille. In saying this, I am not declaring Craig's example as original. It requires further examination, but it is the only one here that closely replicates Hamilton's undisputed original. I have received a couple of messages by PM and email from experienced Luftwaffe collectors who concur with my opinion, but prefer not to post in open forum for their own reasons.
Years ago, the commonest forged Third Reich signature to be found was that of Adolf Hitler. In recent years the autograph market has been flooded with fake signatures of Marseille, Dietrich, Rommel, Prien, Paulus, Peiper, to name but a few. They are all highly decorated officers and consequently command high prices. The vast majority are easily recognizable to the experienced eye as the work of a sole European forger who has produced forgeries in such high numbers that most examples offered for sale are not originals. Many reputable dealers and auction houses are innocently peddling fake material and the market has been flooded to such an extent that forged examples are often used as comparisons for authenticating.
Now compare just one of the signatures you posted with Hamilton's undisputed original.
Using your own method of indicating, I have highlighted the areas which give serious concern over authenticity. Unfortunately for you, one or two areas bear the telltale trademark of the above mentioned forger. No doubt you will disagree with my conclusion, but that is to be expected as nobody likes to discover a doubt over authenticity of a piece in their treasured collection. As I've always said, if you are happy with it, then that is all that matters.
Regards,
Max.

[Dark Angel]

Thank you, Max, for your good explanation.
In my honest opinion, there is a system in existence which can falsify autographs.
Most of the falsifications are to be found on so called "clippings".
Forged signatures are also to be found on documents and cards.
I hope that one day, a collector will submit his autographs to a licensed graphologist to determine the authenticity of his autographs.
If the examination concludes that some or all are forgeries, then there will be a wave of criticism(s) or even demands for reimbursements from the sellers.
If we continue to track this forum, then it will be easy to determine the origin of the forgeries.
The name recurs in questions of authenticity and, the person has revealed his real intent on several occasions. I hope, that other collectors will post and express their views here.
If Max History gets e-mails and pm´s from others, then there should be others who will be of the same opinion.
It is a pity that there is or are no German collector(s) who have come forward to express a knowledgeable opinion or who have made themselves known to this forum to express their opinion.

[max history]

I have been lucky enough to track down the original ink version of the example printed in Charles Hamilton's book. I am reliably informed that this particular example was in the collection of the famous Luftwaffe autograph collector, the late Dr. B.C. West and that it was authenticated by Charles Hamilton prior to it appearing in Hamilton's book. As you can clearly see, there are marked differences between this authentic signature and all those posted here by Jeremy and used by him as comparisons. The similarities between this original autograph and the one posted by Craig are obvious.
Max.

[Jeremy]

No Worries

Thanks, Max, for posting your original example. It is valuable as it adds a lot to our understanding of what a Marseille sig may actually be. I have no problem, as I said, of being shown to be wrong as it serves to help me and other collectors. I am pragmatic over the possibility that my card may be a fake - such is life as a collector - I put it down to experience if it is a fake. I won't mention the name of the dealer I bought mine from in case I am threatened with legal action .

I still think Craig's card is a poor copy of the signature you mention even if the comparison sigs I posted may not be authentic (I mean the lack of flow from thick to thin compared to the Hamilton one), but it is up to any buyer to make that decision for themselves.

I think that this is a valuable discussion on this forum and we should be doing it with other sigs that you mention such as Dietrich and Rommel and so on. Only then will dodgy dealers (I am NOT including you in that group, Craig!) get hung out to dry.

J